You are on page 1of 12

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES CASE DIGESTS

16. [ G.R. No. 136760, July 29, 2003 ]


THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COITTEE, RE!RESENTE" B# ITS CHAIRAN,
SENATOR A$UILINO $. !IENTEL, JR., !ETITIONER, %S. HON. JOSE B.
AJA"UCON, !RESI"ING JU"GE O& BRANCH 23, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
O& GENERAL SANTOS CIT#, AN" ATT#. NILO J. &LA%IANO, RES!ON"ENTS.
G.R. NO. 13'37'
A$UILINO $. !IENTEL, JR., !ETITIONER, %S. THE HONORABLE JOSE S.
AJA"UCON, IN HIS CA!ACIT# AS !RESI"ING JU"GE O& BRANCH 23,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, GENERAL SANTOS CIT#, RES!ON"ENT.
FACTS
These case involved two consolidated petitions
GR No !"#$#%
In !&&'( the Senate th)o*+h its ,l*e Ri--on Co..ittee cond*cted an in/*i)0( in aid
o1 le+islation( into the cha)+es o1 then De1ense Sec)eta)0 O)lando Me)cado that a
+)o*p o1 active and )eti)ed .ilita)0 o2ce)s we)e o)+ani3in+ a co*p d4etat to p)event
the ad.inist)ation o1 then P)esident 5oseph Est)ada 1)o. p)o-in+ alle+ed 1*nd
i))e+*la)ities in the A).ed Fo)ces o1 the Philippines
D*)in+ the p*-lic hea)in+s( it appea)ed that the AFP p*)chased a lot in Gene)al
Santos Cit0( 1o) P!%(6%%%% pe) s/*a)e .ete) 1)o. p)ivate )espondent Att0 Nilo 5
Flaviano -*t in the deed o1 sale( the p*)chase p)ice indicated was onl0 P"(%%%%%
pe) s/*a)e .ete)
The Co..ittee iss*ed a s*-poena to )espondent Att0 Flaviano di)ectin+ hi. to
appea) and testi10 -e1o)e it -*t )espondent instead 7led a petition 1o) p)ohi-ition
and p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction with p)a0e) 1o) te.po)a)0 )est)ainin+ o)de) with the
Re+ional T)ial Co*)t o1 Gene)al Santos Cit0( ,)anch 9"
The RTC iss*ed a Te.po)a)0 Rest)ainin+ O)de) di)ectin+ the Co..ittee :to CEASE
and DESIST 1)o. p)oceedin+ with the in/*i)0 pa)tic*la)l0 in Gene)al Santos Cit0
and;o) an0whe)e in Re+ion <I o) Manila on .atte)s a=ectin+ the patentin+;titlin+
and sale o1 lot and :1)o. iss*in+ s*-poenas to witnesses 1)o. Re+ion <I( pa)tic*la)l0
1)o. Gene)al Santos Cit0( pendin+ the hea)in+ o1 the petition 1o) p)ohi-ition and
in8*nction:
The Senate ,l*e Ri--on Co..ittee 7led a .otion to dis.iss the petition on the
+)o*nds o1 >a? lac@ o1 8*)isdiction( and >-? 1ail*)e to state a valid ca*se o1 action( >c?
the TRO was invalid violatin+ the )*le a+ainst eABpa)te iss*ance the)eo1C >d? and it
was not en1o)cea-le -e0ond the te))ito)ial 8*)isdiction o1 the t)ial co*)t
RTC denied the petitione)4s .otion to dis.iss and +)anted the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0
in8*nction Th*s( the ,l*e Ri--on Co..ittee 7led -e1o)e the SC petition 1o)
ce)tio)a)i alle+in+ that )espondent 5*d+e Ma8ad*con co..itted +)ave a-*se o1
disc)etion when heD
DENIED PETITIONER4S MOTION TO DISMISS TEE PETITION FOR PROEI,ITION
AND PRELIMINARF IN5GNCTION FILED ,F ATTF NILO 5 FLAVIANO
ISSGED >!? A TEMPORARF RESTRAINING ORDER E<BPARTE AND >9? A HRIT OF
PRELIMINARF IN5GNCTION
GR No !"'"$'D
The Philippine Sta) p*-lished a news )epo)t on the 7lin+ -0 the ,l*e Ri--on
Co..ittee with SC o1 the petition 1o) ce)tio)a)i and the news )epo)t /*oted po)tions
o1 the petition 7led -0 the Co..ittee( alle+in+ that Re+ional T)ial Co*)t 5*d+e
Ma8ad*con was +*ilt0 o1 +)oss i+no)ance o1 the )*les and p)oced*)es when he
iss*ed the te.po)a)0 )est)ainin+ o)de) and the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction
-eca*se( *nde) the p)inciple o1 sepa)ation o1 powe)s( co*)ts cannot inte)1e)e with
the eAe)cise -0 the le+islat*)e o1 its a*tho)it0 to cond*ct investi+ations in aid o1
le+islation
Respondent 5*d+e Ma8ad*con then initiated a cha)+e 1o) indi)ect conte.pt o1 co*)t
a+ainst Senato) A/*ilino I Pi.entel( 5) et al 5*d+e Ma8ad*con ave))ed that the
news )epo)t c)eated in the .inds o1 the )eade) the i.p)ession that he violated the
sepa)ation o1 powe)s cla*se o1 the Constit*tion and that he was +*ilt0 o1 +)oss
i+no)ance o1 the )*les and p)oced*)es
A decision was )ende)ed on Ap)il !6( !&&& 7ndin+ petitione) Pi.entel +*ilt0 o1
indi)ect conte.pt ,l*e Ri--on Co..ittee 7led a petition -e1o)e the SC with the
1ollowin+ +)o*ndsD eAp)ession :+)oss i+no)ance o1 the )*les o1 p)oced*)e: o) :+)oss
i+no)ance o1 the law: in )e1e)ence to the )espondent4s eABpa)te iss*ance o1
in8*nctive )elie1 is not pe8o)ative as to constit*te a +)o*nd 1o) indi)ect conte.pt
The two petitions( na.el0( GR No !"#$#% and GR No !"'"$'( we)e o)de)ed
consolidated on Dece.-e) !!( 9%%%
ISSGE
a? whethe) o) not )espondent 5*d+e 5ose Ma8ad*con co..itted +)ave a-*se o1
disc)etion when he dis.issed petitione)4s .otion to dis.iss the petition 1o)
p)ohi-ition and iss*ed the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nctionC and
>-? whethe) o) not )espondent 5*d+e e))ed in convictin+ petitione) Pi.entel o1
indi)ect conte.pt o1 co*)t
RGLING
Fi)st Iss*eD Respondent 5*d+e co..itted +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion
petitione) Co..ittee contends that co*)ts have no 8*)isdiction to )est)ain Con+)ess
1)o. pe)1o).in+ its constit*tionall0 vested 1*nction to cond*ct investi+ations in aid
o1 le+islation( 1ollowin+ the p)inciple o1 sepa)ation o1 powe)s On the othe) hand(
)espondent Flaviano contends that the t)ial co*)t .a0 p)ope)l0 inte)vene into
investi+ations -0 Con+)ess p*)s*ant to the powe) o1 8*dicial )eview vested in it -0
the Constit*tion
Hhen the Senate ,l*e Ri--on Co..ittee se)ved s*-poena on )espondent Flaviano
to appea) and testi10 -e1o)e it in connection with its investi+ation o1 the alle+ed
.is*se and .is.ana+e.ent o1 the AFPBRS,S 1*nds( it did so p*)s*ant to its
a*tho)it0 to cond*ct in/*i)ies in aid o1 le+islation This is clea)l0 p)ovided in A)ticle
VI( Section 9! o1 the Constit*tion
Eence( the R()*o+,l T-*,l Cou-. o/ G(+(-,l S,+.o0 C*.y, o- ,+y 1ou-. /o- .2,.
3,..(-, 2,4 +o ,u.2o-*.y .o 5-o2*6*. .2( Co33*..(( /-o3 -(7u*-*+)
-(05o+4(+. .o ,55(,- ,+4 .(0.*/y 6(/o-( *..
In the instant case( the co.plaint a+ainst )espondent Flaviano )e+a)din+ the
ano.al0 in the sale o1 lot was still pendin+ -e1o)e the O2ce o1 the O.-*ds.an
when the Co..ittee se)ved s*-poena on hi. In othe) wo)ds( no co*)t had
ac/*i)ed 8*)isdiction ove) the .atte) Th*s( the)e was as 0et no enc)oach.ent -0
the le+islat*)e into the eAcl*sive 8*)isdiction o1 anothe) -)anch o1 the +ove)n.ent
Eence( the denial o1 petitione)4s .otion to dis.iss the petition 1o) p)ohi-ition
a.o*nted to +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion
Second Iss*eD
He 7nd that petitione) Pi.entel is not +*ilt0 o1 i.p)ope) cond*ct which o-st)*cts o)
de+)ades the ad.inist)ation o1 8*stice
Ve)il0( it does not appea) that Pi.entel ca*sed the p*-lication in the Philippine Sta)
o1 the 1act o1 7lin+ o1 the petition 1o) ce)tio)a)i -0 the Co..ittee and the
)ep)od*ction o1 eAce)pts the)eo1 Ee had no )i+ht to choose which news a)ticles will
see p)int in the newspape) Rathe)( it is the p*-lishe) the)eo1 which decides which
news events will -e )epo)ted in the -)oadsheet In doin+ so( it is allowed :the widest
latit*de o1 choice as to what ite.s sho*ld see the li+ht o1 da0 so lon+ as the0 a)e
)elevant to a .atte) o1 p*-lic inte)est(: p*)s*ant to its )i+ht o1 p)ess 1)eedo.
17. [ G.R. No. 18'890, July 0', 2009 ]
SOUTHERN CROSS CEENT COR!ORATION, !ETITIONER, %S. THE
!HILI!!INE CEENT ANU&ACTURERS COR!., THE SECRETAR# O& THE
"E!ARTENT O& TRA"E : IN"USTR#, THE SECRETAR# O& THE
"E!ARTENT O& &INANCE, AN" THE COISSIONER O& THE BUREAU O&
CUSTOS, RES!ON"ENTS.
FACTS
On Ma0 9%%!( Depa)t.ent o1 T)ade and Ind*st)0 accepted an application 1)o.
Respondent Philce.co)( alle+in+ that the i.po)tation o1 +)a0 Po)tland ce.ent in
inc)eased /*antities has ca*sed declines in do.estic p)od*ction( capacit0
*tili3ation( .a)@et sha)e( sales and e.plo0.entC as well as ca*sed dep)essed local
p)ices Acco)din+l0( Philce.co) so*+ht the i.position o1 sa1e+*a)d .eas*)es on the
i.po)t o1 ce.ent p*)s*ant to the RA ''%% o) the Sa1e+*a)d Meas*)es Act
DTI )e/*ested the Ta)i= Co..ission to cond*ct a 1o).al investi+ation to dete).ine
whethe) o) not to i.pose a de7nitive sa1e+*a)d .eas*)e on i.po)ts o1 +)a0
Po)tland ce.ent p*)s*ant to Section & o1 the SMA The Ta)i= Co..ission held that
the i.po)tation o1 +)a0 Po)tland ce.ent into the Philippines did not ca*se se)io*s
in8*)0 to the local ce.ent ind*st)0 It )eco..ended that no de7nitive +ene)al
sa1e+*a)d .eas*)e -e i.posed on the i.po)tation o1 +)a0 Po)tland ce.ent
DTI Sec)eta)0 Ma) RoAas disa+)eed with the 7ndin+s o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission -*t
the)e was no se)io*s in8*)0 to the local ce.ent ind*st)0 ca*sed -0 the s*)+e o1
i.po)ts It then )e/*ested 1o) an opinion 1)o. the DO5 on whethe) the Sec)eta)0 was
-o*nd to the 7ndin+s o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission DO5 opinion advised the DTI
Sec)eta)0 that he was -o*nd with the 7ndin+s Th*s( DTI Sec)eta)0 RoAas denied
the application 1o) sa1e+*a)d .eas*)es 7led -0 )espondent PEILCEMCOR
Philce.co) 1iled with the Co*)t o1 Appeals a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus
J9'K
see@in+ to set aside the DTI Decision( as well as the Ta)i=
Co..issionLs Repo)t Philce.co) li@ewise applied 1o) a Temporary Restraining
Order/Injunction to en8oin the DTI and the ,OC 1)o. i.ple.entin+ the
/*estioned Decision and Repo)t
So*the)n C)oss 7led its Comment
J"%K
It a)+*ed that the Co*)t o1 Appeals had no
8*)isdiction ove) Philce.co)Ls Petition( 1o) it is on the Co*)t o1 TaA Appeals >MCTAN?
that the SMA con1e))ed 8*)isdiction to )eview )*lin+s o1 the Sec)eta)0 in connection
with the i.position o1 a sa1e+*a)d .eas*)e
A1te) cond*ctin+ a hea)in+( CA +)anted Philce.co)Ls application 1o) p)eli.ina)0
in8*nction So*the)n Ce.ent 7led a Motion 1o) Reconside)ation while Philce.-o)
7led an opposition Appellate co*)t )*led that it had 8*)isdiction ove) the petition 1o)
ce)tio)a)i since it alle+ed +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion and it )e1*sed to ann*l the
7ndin+s o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission -*t still held that he DTI Sec)eta)0 is not -o*nd -0
the 1act*al 7ndin+s o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission since s*ch 7ndin+s a)e .e)el0
)eco..endato)0 and the0 1all within the a.-it o1 the Sec)eta)0Ls disc)etiona)0
)eview
So*the)n Ce.ent 7led a petition -e1o)e the SC assailin+ the CALs decision a)+*in+
that CA had no 8*)isdiction and the 1act*al 7ndin+s o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission a)e
-indin+ *pon the DTI Sec)eta)0
DTI then iss*ed a new decision which +)anted Philce.co)Ls application 1o)
sa1e+*a)d .eas*)es So*the)n C)oss 7led with the SC a MVery rgent !pp"ication
for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or ! #rit of Pre"iminary InjunctionN
>MTRO !pp"icationN?( see@in+ to en8oin the DTI Sec)eta)0 1)o. en1o)cin+
his Decision in view o1 the pendin+ petition -e1o)e this Co*)t Philce.co) 7led an
opposition( clai.in+( a.on+ othe)s( that it is not this Co*)t -*t the CTA that has
8*)isdiction ove) the application *nde) the law
So*the)n C)oss also 7led with the CTA a Petition for Re$ie%( assailin+ the DTI
Sec)eta)0Ls 96 5*ne 9%%" Decision which i.posed the de7nite sa1e+*a)d .eas*)e
ISSGE

whethe) the Decision o1 the DTI Sec)eta)0 is appeala-le to the CTA o) the
Co*)t o1 AppealsC

ass*.in+ that the Co*)t o1 Appeals has 8*)isdiction( whethe) its Decision is
in acco)dance with lawC and(

whethe) a Temporary Restraining Order is wa))anted


JO$K
RGLING
ReD p)op)iet0 o1 the TRO
So*the)n C)ossLs application 1o) p)ovisional )elie1 so*+ht to en8oin the DTI Sec)eta)0
1)o. en1o)cin+ the de7nitive sa1e+*a)d .eas*)e he i.posed in his 96 5*ne 9%%"
Decision The Cou-. 4*4 +o. )-,+. .2( 5-o;*0*o+,l -(l*(/ /o- *. <oul4 6(
.,+.,3ou+. .o (+=o*+*+) .2( 1oll(1.*o+ o/ .,>(0( a pe)e.pto)0 8*dicial act
which is t)aditionall0 1)owned *pon( *nless the)e is a clea) stat*to)0 -asis 1o) it

In
that )e+a)d( S(1.*o+ 21' o/ .2( T,> R(/o-3 A1. o/ 1997 5-o2*6*.0 ,+y 1ou-.
/-o3 )-,+.*+) ,+ *+=u+1.*o+ .o -(0.-,*+ .2( 1oll(1.*o+ o/ ,+y +,.*o+,l
*+.(-+,l -(;(+u( .,>, /(( o- 12,-)( *35o0(4 6y .2( *+.(-+,l -(;(+u(
1o4(. A si.ila) philosoph0 is eAp)essed -0 S(1.*o+ 29 o/ .2( SA( which states
that the ?l*+) o/ , 5(.*.*o+ /o- -(;*(< 6(/o-( .2( CTA 4o(0 +o. 0.o5,
0u05(+4, o- o.2(-<*0( .oll .2( *35o0*.*o+ o- 1oll(1.*o+ o/ .2( ,55-o5-*,.(
.,-*@ 4u.*(0 o- .2( ,4o5.*o+ o/ o.2(- ,55-o5-*,.( 0,/()u,-4 3(,0u-(0. This
evinces a clea) le+islative intent that the i.position o1 sa1e+*a)d .eas*)es( despite
the availa-ilit0 o1 8*dicial )eview( sho*ld not -e en8oined notwithstandin+ an0 ti.el0
appeal o1 the i.position
ReD !
st
and 9
nd
iss*e
Section 9& o1 the SMA eApanded the 8*)isdiction o1 the CTA -0 incl*din+ )eview o1
the )*lin+s o1 the DTI Sec)eta)0 in connection with the i.position o1 sa1e+*a)d
.eas*)es
Rep Act No &9'9( enacted on "% Ma)ch 9%%O( eAp)essl0 vests *nto the CTA
8*)isdiction ove) MJdKecisions o1 the Sec)eta)0 o1 T)ade and Ind*st)0( in case o1
nona+)ic*lt*)al p)od*ct( co..odit0 o) a)ticle AAA involvin+ AAA safeguard
measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal the
decision to impose or not to impose said dutiesN
The DTI Sec)eta)0 is -a))ed 1)o. i.posin+ a +ene)al sa1e+*a)d .eas*)e a-sent a
positive 7nal dete).ination )ende)ed -0 the Ta)i= Co..ission The )e/*i)ed
positive 7nal dete).ination o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission eAists as a p)ope)l0 enacted
constit*tional li.itation i.posed on the dele+ation o1 the le+islative powe) to
i.pose ta)i=s and i.posts to the P)esident *nde) Section 9'>9?( A)ticle VI o1 the
Constit*tion The p)ovision statesD MThe Con+)ess .a0( -0 law( a*tho)i3e the
P)esident to 7A within speci7ed li.its( and s*-8ect to s*ch li.itations and
)est)ictions as it .a0 i.pose( ta)i= )ates( i.po)t and eApo)t /*otas( tonna+e and
wha)1a+e d*es( and othe) d*ties o) i.posts within the 1)a.ewo)@ o1 the national
develop.ent p)o+)a. o1 the Gove)n.ent
Petition is +)anted
1'. [ G.R. No. 11'216, ,-12 09, 2000 ]
"ELTA%ENTURES RESOURCES, INC., !ETITIONER, %S. HON. &ERNAN"O !.
CABATO, !RESI"ING JU"GE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LA TRINI"A",
BENGUET, BRANCH 62A HON. GELACIO L. RI%ERA, JR., EBECUTI%E LABOR
ARBITER, NLRCCCAR, BAGUIO CIT#, A"A !. %ENTURA, "E!UT#CSHERI&&,
NLRCCCAR, BAGUIO CIT#A ALEJAN"RO BERNAR"INO, AUGUSTO GRANA"OS,
!ILAN"O TANGA#, NESTOR RABANG, RA# "A#A!, #RA BA#AONA, %IOL#
LIBAO, AI"A LIBAO, JESUS GATCHO AN" GREGORIO "ULA#, RES!ON"ENTS.
FACTS
In a la-o) case entitled :Ale8and)o ,e)na)dino( et al vs G)een Mo*ntain Fa).(
Ro-e)to On+pin and Al.*s Ala-e:( EAec*tive La-o) A)-ite) No).a Ole+a)io decla)ed
the )espondents +*ilt0 o1 ille+al dis.issal and *n1ai) la-o) p)actice and o)de)in+ to
the. petitione)s >in the p)esent case a)e the p)ivate )espondents?
In !&&O( EAec*tive La-o) A)-ite) Gelacio Rive)a 5) iss*ed a w)it o1 eAec*tion and
the)ea1te)( She)i= Ada. Vent*)a +a)nished pe)sonal p)ope)ties o1 the la-o) case
)espondents Since these we)e not s*2cient( She)i= Vent*)a also levied a )eal
p)ope)t0 owned -0 )espondent Ro-e)ton On+pin and ca*sed the p*-lication o1 the
date o1 p*-lic a*ction o1 said )eal p)ope)t0
One .onth -e1o)e the sched*led a*ction sale( petitione) Deltaven*)es Reso*)ces
Inc 7led -e1o)e the NLRC a thi)d pa)t0 clai. asse)tin+ owne)ship ove) the p)ope)t0
levied *pon and s*-8ect o1 the She)i=Ls notice o1 sale
The)ea1te)( Deltavent*)es also 7led with the RTCBT)inidad( ,en+*et a co.plaint 1o)
in8*nction and da.a+es with p)a0e) 1o) the iss*ance o1 a te.po)a)0 )est)ainin+
o)de) a+ainst She)i= Vent*)a( )eite)atin+ the sa.e alle+ations it )aised in the thi)d
pa)t0 clai. it 7led with the Co..ission
RTC 5*d+e Ca-ato iss*ed a TRO and to hold in a-e0ance an0 action )elative to the
en1o)ce.ent o1 the decision o1 the la-o) case P)ivate )espondentBla-o)e)s .oved to
dis.iss the civil case on the +)o*nd o1 lac@ o1 8*)isdiction
RTC iss*ed a )*lin+ thatD
:Fi)st( this Co*)t is o1 e/*al )an@ with the NLRC( hence( has no 8*)isdiction to
iss*e an in8*nction a+ainst the eAec*tion o1 the NLRC decision A A A
Second( the NLRC )etains a*tho)it0 ove) all p)oceedin+s anent the eAec*tion
o1 its decision This powe) ca))ies with it the )i+ht to dete).ine eve)0
/*estion which .a0 -e involved in the eAec*tion o1 its decision A A A
Thi)d( Deltavent*)es Reso*)ces( Inc sho*ld )el0 on and co.pl0 with the
R*les o1 the NLRC -eca*se it is the p)incipal p)oced*)e to -e 1ollowed( the
R*les o1 Co*)t -ein+ .e)el0 s*ppleto)0 in application(
Petitione) 7led a .otion 1o) )econside)ation which the RTC denied Th*s( it 7led the
instant petition a)+*in+ that the RTC e))ed in dis.issin+ the thi)dBpa)t0 clai. on the
+)o*nd o1 lac@ o1 8*)isdiction F*)the)( it contends that the NLRCBCAR did not ac/*i)e
8*)isdiction ove) the clai. 1o) it did not i.p*+n the decision o1 the NLRCBCAR -*t
.e)el0 /*estioned the p)op)iet0 o1 the lev0 .ade -0 She)i= Vent*)a
ISSGE
whethe) o) not the t)ial co*)t .a0 ta@e co+ni3ance o1 the co.plaint 7led -0
petitione) and conse/*entl0 p)ovide the in8*nctive )elie1 so*+ht
RGLINGD RTC has no 8*)isdiction
Ostensi-l0 the co.plaint -e1o)e the t)ial co*)t was 1o) the )ecove)0 o1 possession
and in8*nction( -*t in essence it was an action challen+in+ the le+alit0 o) p)op)iet0
o1 the lev0 visBaBvis the alias w)it o1 eAec*tion( incl*din+ the acts pe)1o).ed -0 the
La-o) A)-ite) and the Dep*t0 She)i= i.ple.entin+ the w)it The co.plaint was in
e=ect a .otion to /*ash the w)it o1 eAec*tion o1 a decision )ende)ed on a case
p)ope)l0 within the 8*)isdiction o1 the La-o) A)-ite)( to witD Ille+al Dis.issal and
Gn1ai) La-o) P)actice
Conside)in+ the 1act*al settin+( it is then lo+ical to concl*de that the s*-8ect .atte)
o1 the thi)d pa)t0 clai. is -*t an incident o1 the la-o) case( a .atte) -e0ond the
8*)isdiction o1 )e+ional t)ial co*)ts P)ecedent a-o*nd con7).in+ the )*le that said
co*)ts have no 8*)isdiction to act on la-o) cases o) va)io*s incidents a)isin+
the)e1)o.( incl*din+ the eAec*tion o1 decisions( awa)ds o) o)de)sJ9!K 5*)isdiction to
t)0 and ad8*dicate s*ch cases pe)tains eAcl*sivel0 to the p)ope) la-o) o2cial
conce)ned *nde) the Depa)t.ent o1 La-o) and E.plo0.ent To hold othe)wise is to
sanction split 8*)isdiction which is o-noAio*s to the o)de)l0 ad.inist)ation o1 8*stice
J99K
5*)isdiction once ac/*i)ed is not lost *pon the instance o1 the pa)ties -*t contin*es
*ntil the case is te).inated Eavin+ esta-lished that 8*)isdiction ove) the case )ests
with the Co..ission( we 7nd no +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion on the pa)t o1
)espondent 5*d+e Ca-ato in den0in+ petitione)4s .otion 1o) the iss*ance o1 an
in8*nction a+ainst the eAec*tion o1 the decision o1 the National La-o) Relations
Co..ission Mo)eove)( it .*st -e noted that the Labor Code in Article 2!
e"plicitly prohibits issuance of a temporary or permanent in#unction or
restraining order in any case in$ol$ing or growing out of labor disputes by
any court or other entity %e"cept as otherwise pro$ided in Arts. 2&8 and
2'!(.
Mo)eove)( in den0in+ petitione)4s petition 1o) in8*nction( the co*)t a /*o is .e)el0
*pholdin+ the ti.eBhono)ed p)inciple that a Regional )rial Court, being a co*
e+ual body of the National Labor Relations Commission, has no #urisdiction
to issue any restraining order or in#unction to en#oin the e"ecution of any
decision of the latter.
,-.R./0R.( the petition 1o) ce)tio)a)i and p)ohi-ition is 1.N2.1
19. [ G.R. No. 1'977', O1.o6(- 02, 2009 ]
BANGDO SENTRAL NG !ILI!INAS ONETAR# BOAR" AN" CHUCHI
&ONACIER, !ETITIONERS, %S. HON. NINA G. ANTONIOC%ALENEUELA, IN HER
CA!ACIT# AS REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JU"GE O& ANILA, BRANCH 2'A
RURAL BAND O& !ARAFA$UE, INC.A RURAL BAND O& SAN JOSE
GBATANGASH, INC.A RURAL BAND O& CAREN GCEBUH, INC.A !ILI!INO RURAL
BAND, INC.A !HILI!!INE COUNTR#SI"E RURAL BAND, INC.A RURAL BAND O&
CALATAGAN GBATANGASH, INC. GNOI "#NAIC RURAL BANDHA RURAL BAND
O& "ARBCI, INC.A RURAL BAND O& DANANGA GLE#TEH, INC. GNOI &IRST
INTERSTATE RURAL BANDHA RURAL BAND O& BISA#AS INGLANILLA GNOI
BAND O& EAST ASIAHA AN" SAN !ABLO CIT# "E%ELO!ENT BAND, INC.,
RES!ON"ENTS
FACTS
In Septe.-e) o1 9%%$( the S*pe)vision and EAa.ination Depa)t.ent >SED? o1 the
&ang'o (entra" ng Pi"ipinas >,SP? cond*cted eAa.inations o1 the -oo@s o1 the
1ollowin+ -an@sD R*)al ,an@ o1 Pa)aPa/*e( Inc >R,PI?( R*)al ,an@ o1 San 5ose
>,atan+as?( Inc( R*)al ,an@ o1 Ca).en >Ce-*?( Inc( Pilipino R*)al ,an@( Inc(
Philippine Co*nt)0side R*)al ,an@( Inc( R*)al ,an@ o1 Calata+an >,atan+as?( Inc
>now D0na.ic R*)al ,an@?( R*)al ,an@ o1 Da)-ci( Inc( R*)al ,an@ o1 Qanan+a
>Le0te?( Inc >now Fi)st Inte)state R*)al ,an@?( R*)al ,an@ de ,isa0as Min+lanilla
>now ,an@ o1 East Asia?( and San Pa-lo Cit0 Develop.ent ,an@( Inc Despite SEDLs
o)de)s( the a1o)esaid -an@s 1ailed to i.ple.ent )e.edial .eas*)es especiall0 the
in1*sion o1 additional capital
In 9%%'( R*)al ,an@ o1 Pa)aPa/*e( Inc 7led a co.plaint 1o) n*lli7cation o1 the
,an+@o Sent)al n+ Pilipinas Repo)t O1 EAa.ination with application 1o) a TRO and
w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction -e1o)e the RTC doc@eted as Civil Case No %'B!!&9O"
a+ainst Ch*chi Fonacie) >OICBSED?( the ,SP( A.ado M Tetan+co( 5)( Ro.*lo L Ne)i(
Vicente , Valdepenas( 5)( Ra*l A ,oncan( 5*anita D A.aton+( Al1)edo C Antonio(
and Nell0 F Villa1*e)te R,PI p)a0ed that Fonacie)( he) s*-o)dinates( a+ents( o) an0
othe) pe)son actin+ in he) -ehal1 -e en8oined 1)o. s*-.ittin+ the ROE o) an0
si.ila) )epo)t to the Moneta)0 ,oa)d >M,?( o) i1 the ROE had al)ead0 -een
s*-.itted( the M, -e en8oined 1)o. actin+ on the -asis o1 said ROE( on the
alle+ation that the 1ail*)e to 1*)nish the -an@ with a cop0 o1 the ROE violated its
)i+ht to d*e p)ocess
RTC 5*d+e Nina AntonioBValen3*ela +)anted the TRO The)ea1te)( othe) -an@s
sepa)atel0 7led .otions 1o) consolidation o1 thei) cases in ,)anch 9' which
)espondent 8*d+e +)anted and also +)anted thei) )espective p)a0e) 1o) iss*ance o1
TRO
Petitione) 7led a .otion to dis.iss all the co.plaints on the +)o*nd o1 lac@ o1 ca*se
o1 action A1te) the pa)ties 7led thei) )espective .e.o)anda( the RTC( on 5*ne O(
9%%'( )*led that the -an@s we)e entitled to the w)its o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction
p)a0ed 1o) It held that it had -een the p)actice o1 the SED to p)ovide the ROEs to
the -an@s -e1o)e s*-.ission to the M, It 1*)the) held that as the -an@s a)e the
s*-8ects o1 eAa.inations( the0 a)e entitled to copies o1 the ROEs The denial -0
petitione)s o1 the -an@s4 )e/*ests 1o) copies o1 the ROEs was held to -e a denial o1
the -an@s4 )i+ht to d*e p)ocess
Petitione)s -)o*+ht the .atte) -e1o)e the CA via petition 1o) ce)tio)a)i *nde) R*le #6
clai.in+ +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion -*t the CA )ea2).ed the RTCLs iss*ance o1 the
w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction and when it o)de)ed the consolidation o1 the !% cases
CA also held that the p)inciples o1 1ai)ness and t)anspa)enc0 dictate that the
)espondent -an@s a)e entitled to copies o1 the ROE
Petitione)s )e/*ested 1o) a TRO 1)o. the SC which the latte) +)anted ,0 )eason o1
the TRO iss*ed -0 the SC( the SED was a-le to s*-.it thei) ROEs to the Moneta)0
,oa)d The M, then p)ohi-ited the )espondent -an@s 1)o. t)ansactin+ -*siness and
placed the. *nde) )eceive)ship with the Philippine Deposit Ins*)ance Co)po)ation
as the appointed )eceive)
ISSGE
Hhethe) o) not the CA e))ed in not 7ndin+ that the in8*nction iss*ed -0 the )e+ional
t)ial co*)t violated section 96 o1 the new cent)al -an@ act and e=ectivel0 handc*=ed
the -an+@o sent)al 1)o. discha)+in+ its 1*nctions to the +)eat and i))epa)a-le
da.a+e o1 the co*nt)04s -an@in+ s0ste.C
RGLINGD The in8*nction violated the Cent)al ,an@ Act
)he re+uisites for preliminary in#uncti$e relief are3
a( the in$asion of right sought to be protected is material and
substantial4
b( the right of the complainant is clear and unmista5able4 and
c( there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to pre$ent
serious damage.
As s*ch( a writ of preliminary in#unction may be issued only upon clear
showing of an actual e"isting right to be protected during the pendency of
the principal action. )he twin re+uirements of a $alid in#unction are the
e"istence of a right and its actual or threatened $iolations. Th*s( to -e
entitled to an in8*nctive w)it( the )i+ht to -e p)otected and the violation a+ainst that
)i+ht .*st -e shownJ'K
These )e/*i)e.ents a)e a-sent in the p)esent case In +)antin+ the w)its o1
p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction( the t)ial co*)t held that the s*-.ission o1 the ROEs to the M,
-e1o)e the )espondent -an@s wo*ld violate the )i+ht to d*e p)ocess o1 said -an@s
This is e))oneo*s
The )espondent -an@s have 1ailed to show that the0 a)e entitled to copies o1 the
ROEs The0 can point to no p)ovision o1 law( no section in the p)oced*)es o1 the ,SP
that shows that the ,SP is )e/*i)ed to +ive the. copies o1 the ROEs
The iss*ance -0 the RTC o1 w)its o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction is an *nwa))anted
inte)1e)ence with the powe)s o1 the M, Secs 9& and "% o1 RA $#6"J!%K )e1e) to the
appoint.ent o1 a conse)vato) o) a )eceive) 1o) a -an@( which is a powe) o1 the M,
1o) which the0 need the ROEs done -0 the s*pe)visin+ o) eAa.inin+ depa)t.ent
The writs of preliminary in#unction issued by the trial court hinder the 67
from ful8lling its function under the law The actions of the 67 *nde) Secs
9& and "% o1 RA $#6" :may not be restrained or set aside by the court e"cept
on petition for 1(-.*o-,-* on the ground that the action ta5en was in e"cess
of #urisdiction or with such gra$e abuse of discretion as to amount to lac5
or e"cess of #urisdiction.9 The w)its o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction o)de) a)e p)ecisel0
what cannot -e done *nde) the law -0 p)eventin+ the M, 1)o. ta@in+ action *nde)
eithe) Sec 9& o) Sec "% o1 RA $#6"
As to the thi)d )e/*i)e.ent( the )espondent -an@s have shown no necessit0 1o) the
w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction to p)event se)io*s da.a+e The se)io*s da.a+e
conte.plated -0 the t)ial co*)t was the possi-ilit0 o1 the i.position o1 sanctions
*pon )espondent -an@s( even the sanction o1 clos*)e Gnde) the law( the sanction o1
clos*)e co*ld -e i.posed *pon a -an@ -0 the ,SP even witho*t notice and hea)in+
The )espondent -an@s cannotBBth)o*+h see@in+ a w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction -0
appealin+ to lac@ o1 d*e p)ocess( in a )o*nda-o*t .anne)BB p)event thei) clos*)e -0
the M, Thei) )e.ed0( as stated( is a s*-se/*ent one( which will dete).ine whethe)
the clos*)e o1 the -an@ was attended -0 +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion 5*dicial )eview
ente)s the pict*)e onl0 a1te) the M, has ta@en actionC it cannot p)event s*ch action
-0 the M, )he threat of the imposition of sanctions, e$en that of closure,
does not $iolate their right to due process, and cannot be the basis for a
writ of preliminary in#unction.
The )espondent -an@s have 1ailed to show thei) entitle.ent to the w)it o1
p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction It .*st -e e.phasi3ed that an application for in#uncti$e
relief is construed strictly against the pleader.:!OK The )espondent -an@s
cannot )el0 on a si.ple appeal to p)oced*)al d*e p)ocess to p)ove entitle.ent The
)e/*i)e.ents 1o) the iss*ance o1 the w)it have not -een p)oved No invasion o1 the
)i+hts o1 )espondent -an@s has -een shown( no) is thei) )i+ht to copies o1 the ROEs
clea) and *n.ista@a-le The)e is also no necessit0 1o) the w)it to p)event se)io*s
da.a+e Indeed the iss*ance o1 the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction t)a.ples *pon the
powe)s o1 the M, and p)events it 1)o. 1*l7llin+ its 1*nctions The)e is no )i+ht that
the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction wo*ld p)otect in this pa)tic*la) case 2n the
absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the in#uncti$e writ
constitutes gra$e abuse of discretion.J!6K In the a-sence o1 p)oo1 o1 a le+al
)i+ht and the in8*)0 s*stained -0 the plainti=( an o)de) 1o) the iss*ance o1 a w)it o1
p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction will -e n*lli7edJ!#K
The grant of a preliminary in#unction in a case rests on the sound
discretion of the court with the ca$eat that it should be made with great
cautionJ!$K Th*s( the iss*ance o1 the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction .*st have
-asis in and -e in acco)dance with law
All told( while the +)ant o) denial o1 an in8*nction +ene)all0 )ests on the so*nd
disc)etion o1 the lowe) co*)t( this Co*)t .a0 and sho*ld inte)vene in a clea) case o1
a-*seJ!'K
,-.R./0R.( the petition is he)e-0 ;RAN).1
20. [ G.R. No. LC66321, O1.o6(- 31, 19'9 ]
TRA"ERS RO#AL BAND, !ETITIONER, %S. THE HON. INTERE"IATE
A!!ELLATE COURT, HON. JESUS R. "E %EGA, AS !RESI"ING JU"GE O& THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, THIR"
JU"ICIAL REGION, BRANCH IB, ALOLOS, BULACAN, LA TON"EFA, INC.,
%ICTORINO !. E%ANGELISTA, IN HIS CA!ACIT# AS EBCO&ICIO !RO%INCIAL
SHERI&& O& BULACAN, AN"JOR AN# AN" ALL HIS "E!UTIES,
RES!ON"ENTS.
FACTS
In Ma)ch !&'"( T)ade)s Ro0al ,an@ instit*ted a s*it a+ainst the Re.co Alcohol
Distille)0( Inc 1o) the )ecove)0 o1 the s*. o1 P9("'9(96'$! and o-tainin+ a w)it o1
p)eli.ina)0 attach.ent di)ected a+ainst the assets and p)ope)ties o1 Re.co Alcohol
Distille)0( Inc
P*)s*ant to said w)it o1 attach.ent iss*ed Dep*t0 She)i= Edil-e)to Santia+o levied
a.on+ othe)s a-o*t O(#%% -a))els o1 a+ed o) )ecti7ed alcohol 1o*nd within the
p)e.ises o1 said Re.co Distille)0 Inc
A thi)d pa)t0 clai. was 7led with the Dep*t0 She)i= -0 he)ein )espondent La
TondePa( Inc on Ap)il !( !&'9 clai.in+ owne)ship ove) said attached p)ope)t0
La Tondena 7led a Motion to Hithd)aw the alcohol and .olasses 1)o. the Re.co
Distille)t0 Plant which the RTC +)anted Eoweve)( RTC )econside)ed its )*lin+ -0
decla)in+ that the alcohol which was not withd)awn )e.ains in the owne)ship o1
Re.co and it denied La TondenaLs .otion to inte)vene The)ea1te)( La TondePa Inc
instit*ted -e1o)e the RTC ,)anch I<( Malolos( ,*lacan p)esided ove) -0 Respondent
5*d+e( Civil Case No $%%"BM( in which it asse)ted its clai. o1 owne)ship ove) the
p)ope)ties attached in Civil Case No &'&OBP( and li@e B wise p)a0ed 1o) the iss*ance
o1 a w)it o1 P)eli.ina)0 Mandato)0 and P)ohi-ito)0 In8*nction Petitione) then 7led a
.otion to dis.iss to the application o1 La Tondena
RTC decla)ed )espondent La TondePa Inc to -e the owne) o1 the disp*ted alcohol(
and +)anted the latte)4s application 1o) in8*nctive )elie1 Respondent She)i= Victo)ino
Evan+elista iss*ed on Edil-e)to A Santia+o Dep*t0 She)i= o1 Pasa0 Cit0 the
co))espondin+ w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction 1ollowed -0 an o)de) o1 the RTC Pasa0
Co*)t )e/*i)in+ Dep*t0 She)i= Edil-e)to A Santia+o to en1o)ce the w)it o1
p)eli.ina)0 attach.ent p)evio*sl0 iss*ed -0 said co*)t
Petitione) T)ade)s Ro0al ,an@ 7led with the Inte).ediate Appellate Co*)t a petition
1o) ce)tio)a)i and p)ohi-ition( with application 1o) a w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction( to
ann*l and set aside the O)de) dated Septe.-e) 9'( !&'" o1 the )espondent
Re+ional T)ial Co*)t o1 Malolos( ,*lacan( ,)anch I<( iss*ed in Civil Case No
$%%"BMC to dissolve the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction dated Octo-e) #( !&'" iss*ed
p*)s*ant to said o)de)C to p)ohi-it )espondent 5*d+e 1)o. ta@in+ co+ni3ance o1 and
ass*.in+ 8*)isdiction ove) Civil Case No $%%"BMC and to co.pel p)ivate )espondent
La TondePa( Inc( and EABO7cio P)ovincial She)i= o1 ,*lacan to )et*)n the disp*ted
alcohol to thei) o)i+inal location at Re.co4s a+ein+ wa)eho*se at Cal*.pit( ,*lacan
In its decision( the Inte).ediate Appellate Co*)t dis.issed the petition 1o) lac@ o1
le+al and 1act*al -asis( holdin+ that the )espondent 5*d+e did not a-*se his
disc)etion in iss*in+ the O)de) o1 Septe.-e) 9'( !&'" and the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0
in8*nction
ISSGE
Hhethe) o) not the RTC has a*tho)it0 to iss*e( at the instance o1 a thi)dBpa)t0
clai.ant( an in8*nction en8oinin+ the sale o1 p)ope)t0 p)evio*sl0 levied *pon -0 the
she)i= p*)s*ant to a w)it o1 attach.ent iss*ed -0 anothe) Re+ional T)ial Co*)t
RGLINGD Fes( a co*)t .a0 iss*e an in8*nction en8oinin+ the sale o1 p)ope)t0
p)evio*sl0 levied *pon -0 the she)i= p*)s*ant to a w)it o1 attach.ent iss*ed -0
anothe) Re+ional T)ial Co*)t
The)e is no /*estion that the action 7led -0 p)ivate )espondent La TondePa( Inc( as
thi)dBpa)t0 clai.ant( -e1o)e the Re+ional T)ial Co*)t o1 ,*lacan in Civil Case No
$%%"B M whe)ein it clai.ed owne)ship ove) the p)ope)t0 levied *pon -0 Pasa0 Cit0
Dep*t0 She)i= Edil-e)to Santia+o is sanctioned -0 Section !O( R*le 6$ o1 the R*les
o1 Co*)t
Section !O( R*le 6$ eAplicitl0 sets 1o)th the )e.ed0 that .a0 -e availed o1 -0 a
pe)son who clai.s to -e the owne) o1 p)ope)t0 levied *pon -0 attach.ent( vi3D to
lod+e a thi)dBpa)t0 clai. with the she)i=( and i1 the attachin+ c)edito) posts an
inde.nit0 -ond in 1avo) o1 the she)i=( to 7le a se pa)ate and independent action to
vindicate his clai. >A-ie)a $s Co*)t o1 Appeals( O6 SCRA "!O? And this p)ecisel0
was the )e.ed0 )eso)ted to -0 p)ivate )es pondent La TondePa when it 7led the
vindicato)0 action -e1o)e the ,*lacan Co*)t
;enerally, the rule that no court has the power to interfere by in#unction
with the #udgments or decrees of a concurrent or coordinate #urisdiction
ha$ing e+ual power to grant the in#uncti$e relief sought by in#unction, is
applied in cases where no .2*-4C5,-.y 1l,*3,+. *0 *+;ol;(4, in order to
pre$ent one court from nullifying the #udgment or process of another
court of the same ran5 or category, a power which de$ol$es upon the
proper appellate court.:2< )he purpose of the rule is to a$oid con=ict of
power between di>er rent courts of coordinate #urisdiction and to bring
about a harmonious and smooth functioning of their proceedings.
,-.R./0R.( the instant petition is he)e-0 dis.issed and the decision o1 the
Inte).ediate Appellate Co*)t in ACBGR No SPB%!'#% is a2).ed( with costs a+ainst
petitione) T)ade)s Ro0al ,an@